Aldon:We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make Guns cars safer and we continue to do more every year.

People who have no knowledge of firearms laws and safety innovations should not participate in a debate about the same. They can be easily identified, as they are the ones that think there aren't enough laws or gun safety innovations.

Click Click D'oh:If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

Oh, and that's not to mention all the things we do to make sure that the humans who drive cars are responsible, like requiring safety and operations training, licensing, rules and regulations on how and where cars are used, prohibitions against operating while under the influence, careful tracking of ownership, and revocation of licenses for people who break the rules.

dittybopper:UNC_Samurai: How responsible of a gun owner was she if she kept firearms in the house with a kid with obvious mental health issues?

So she loses her rights through no fault of her own?

I'm not saying she shouldn't have a right to own a gun. But when you have a dependent with a developmental disorder, perhaps it's better to store your firearms somewhere other than the house. Why can't we require people in that situation to store dangerous weapons off-site?

Also, while he may have had mental issues, I have yet to hear that he had violent tendencies from any source. *THAT* might be a problem, but again, she shouldn't have lost any rights because of that.

When you are the caretaker for someone like that, you have to accept certain responsibilities.

Also, the shooter was an adult. He was 19 years old at the time, not a 'kid' in the legal sense of the term.

Semantics. I'll drop "kid" and add "dependent". Either way, he can't function without a caretaker.

In addition, we don't really know if she had the guns locked up and he just managed to steal the key or figure out the combination. She had an actual gun safe, so for all we know at this point they may have been locked up.

And if he still was able to access the firearms, through coercion or subterfuge, then we have a failure in the system.

He *PLANNED* the shootings ahead of time, and if he kept his plans to himself, there is essentially nothing anyone could have done. Connecticut had fairly strict gun laws at the time, and they were followed by his mother. All the guns she had were legally owned, and she had to get background checks on all of them.

This is why I think we need to strengthen both the background checks and the state of mental health diagnosis. Violence isn't exactly a rarity with people with autism; and he had been diagnosed with SID and had some anger issues. Maybe the background check should include "are you caretaking for any dependents with mental disabilities, developmental disabilities, or are prone to violent tendencies?

Of course, no laws will ever close the "steal the guns and shoot the owner in the face with them" loophole.

Laws are never going to be perfect, but what people are asking for is a better refinement and improvements to those laws. Firearms ownership is an incredible responsibility, and the consequences of negligence can obviously be widespread. Dismissing it as a freak incident we can do nothing about - as well as an argument about rights as a blanket defense - is disingenuous. In this case, there was a form of negligence, and a lot of innocent people were killed as a consequence. And there are steps we can take to minimize future incidents, but too often we can't discuss those because somehow any attempt to use public policy to ensure people are responsible with dangerous tools is seen as an infringement on their rights.

Click Click D'oh:Aldon:We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make Guns cars safer and we continue to do more every year.

People who have no knowledge of firearms laws and safety innovations should not participate in a debate about the same. They can be easily identified, as they are the ones that think there aren't enough laws or gun safety innovations.

Could we not mandate biometric locks be installed on all firearms? Such a requirement would guarantee that a firearm would never be stolen and used against its owner. As such technology is obviously infallible, imposing such a requirement would cause no harm at all.

Police, of course, would be exempt from such a requirement, because police are themselves infallible.

Aldon:BgJonson79: Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over? I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...

Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general. It is disingenuous to suggest that is what is happening.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and every human and constitutional right) has responsibility and reasonable restrictions associated with it why not the Second Amendment? That is what people are asking for who are on the other side of the debate.

I don't see why the Second Amendment should be treated differently than every other amendment or right.

Itstoearly:MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia

Yeah, why in the world would you be afraid of something that can kill you (accidentally or on purpose) by just squeezing a trigger. I thought the whole purpose of law-abiding citizens owning guns was to kill bad guys with guns, so...doesn't that make you just as afraid of guns? You are just dealing with it by counting on being able to draw your faster (and hoping that the other guy really is a bad guy).

Nice to hear from you! I've had discussion with a few other people like yourself and generally it's pretty easy to agree on some principles, and even a lot of specific ways to do things to implement those principles. So all is not lost, we just need to find a way for reasonable people to be heard over the Shouty McYellsalots of the world!

*tips hat*

The funny/strange aspect of all this is that the odds of any sort of significant change seem to be quite low. No Shouty types want to budge on their positions (again, on both sides) and the factions basically cancel each other out. It's like a tug-of-war between two identical vehicles: the individual drivers may be different but there won't be enough movement to constitute a win unless there is a catastrophic change on one side or the other.

Click Click D'oh:Aldon:We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make Guns cars safer and we continue to do more every year.

People who have no knowledge of firearms laws and safety innovations should not participate in a debate about the same. They can be easily identified, as they are the ones that think there aren't enough laws or gun safety innovations.

The proper thing to do with uninformed people is to educate them, not dismiss them from the discussion. So please, educate us on all the things that have been done to make guns safer.

And, regarding enough laws -- I think the problem isn't quantity of laws, it the content. In some cases the laws are overburdensome and ineffective, and those laws should be removed. In other cases they are insufficient. If you like we can discuss specifics, which will be less fun that trying to prove how stupid each other is, but possibly more productive. It's up to you, I'll go either way.

Zasteva:You understand that the meaning changes when you add words like "solely". I never said solely and I agree that's patently false.

No, you didn't, but the person who started that line of reasoning did: "Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you" ... and now you are carrying the torch for him. Unless you wish to distinguish your argument from his?

Zasteva: CarsGuns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of Carsguns are designed primarily for other purposes (School buses shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too.

Continuing with the absurdity... Sometimes it can be a royal pain to scrape the toddlers off my Chargers push bumper. The back seat is for spectators. Any rumor that my Charger is for designed for non-lethal intents is simply false.

Zasteva:Safety glass, bumpers, collapsing unibody frames that absorb the impact of collisions, safety belts, airbags, ABS, dynamic traction and stability control, and, in the near future we can expect to see things like automatic collision avoidance and eventually self-driving cars that take car out of human hands altogether.

MFAWG:BgJonson79: MFAWG: Itstoearly: MFAWG: Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.

Not as much as it must suck to have gunphobia

I own 3, and feel no need to carry any of them all the time, even though I have a CCW permit.

I'm sorry you have to get permission from your state to exercise an enumerated right.

Concealed carry is an enumerated right?

Show me. Wyatt Earp was on the wrong side of the carry issue?

I wouldn't say so, but as far as the issue has been pushed in the courts, a complete blanket ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional. I imagine we will find out shortly if SCOTUS deems it worth debating over.

Wyatt Earp was also far more of a vigilante than most people know (for a good reason though).

That's a common misconception. You are likely to be arrested for and convicted of DUI if the police find you sitting in the driver's seat of your car with the keys in your hand, even if you are in the driveway of your own house (your personal private property).

You can be given a fine for not having insurance on a car that's sitting on blocks in your back yard, completely incapable of being operated, unless you've turned in the tags.

Zasteva:This text is now purple: The regulations on cars used on private property are almost nil.

That's a common misconception. You are likely to be arrested for and convicted of DUI if the police find you sitting in the driver's seat of your car with the keys in your hand, even if you are in the driveway of your own house (your personal private property).

You can be given a fine for not having insurance on a car that's sitting on blocks in your back yard, completely incapable of being operated, unless you've turned in the tags.

Don't mistake difficulty of enforcement for lack of regulation.

My state doesn't require insurance (or sales or income tax), and I'm not sure what probable cause the police would have to talk to you sitting in your car in your driveway...

Zasteva:Click Click D'oh: If cars aren't intended to kill people, what should we do to make them safer so that fewer people die when they are used?

Oh, and that's not to mention all the things we do to make sure that the humans who drive cars are responsible, like requiring safety and operations training, licensing, rules and regulations on how and where cars are used, prohibitions against operating while under the influence, careful tracking of ownership, and revocation of licenses for people who break the rules.

Shall we keep playing?

Sure. Vehicles are used largely in the public domain within normal usage. Therefore, there are a set of conditions of which you must meet in order to operate said machinery in public.

Firearms are largely used in private environments, unless utilized for a crime. Where utilized publicly, concealed carry, there are indeed a set of conditions that also need to be met; which include safety courses, shooting schools, registration, and license. (some or all depending on municipality)

Want to get serious about what requires training? I would wager that shiatty parenting results in the death of more people than all the rest of these petty arguments all combined. Bad parenting results in the death and injury of self, death and injury or others, illegal activities, cost to the public, cost to the individual, etc. etc. Get back to me when PARENTING requires even the least modicum of training, safety, and/or license to participate in.

Ask Click D'oh why he brought up cars. I'm just reacting to what he said.

The thing about a Redacto Ad Absurdum argument is that it's absurd. It's not supposed to be respect for being correct. It's whole point is to demonstrate insanely flawed logic. Cars are introduced to demonstrate that the same absurd and illogical arguments about firearms can be applied equally to any other item that can be misused to cause harm.

hailin:Ah I think I just realized why this crap happens. In the article, the kid said he saw his cousins go to prison and when they got out they were surrounded by girls. So we just need to teach women to respect themselves and not date sleezeballs who have been to prison. If they don't get girls then it won't be "cool" to be a criminal.

Not saying it is a realistic solution, but better than restrictive gun laws that protect no one.

Yeah, let's not go the route where we treat half the population like small children, mmmmkay?

In this corner, those that would like to see the US follow North KoreaIn this other corner, those that would like to see the US follow Somalia

About 90% of the middle? Just want less crime and increased sense of safety.Good luck with that as the reasonable middle class collapses and we're left with those desperate to make money by any means possible; both the poor and the rich.

BgJonson79:Aldon: BgJonson79: Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over? I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...

Again, anyone trying to eliminate or confiscate firearms has ZERO influence today in policy or politics in general. It is disingenuous to suggest that is what is happening.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and every human and constitutional right) has responsibility and reasonable restrictions associated with it why not the Second Amendment? That is what people are asking for who are on the other side of the debate.

I don't see why the Second Amendment should be treated differently than every other amendment or right.

What restrictions are there for the Fourth and Fifth?

Just some quick examples, there are many more (probably can just google it):

Fourth amendment: Have you heard of the NSA spying debate going on since at least 2002? George W. Bush's administration thought he didn't even have to go though the FISA court to listen into phone conversations. It is not applicable in international airports etc....

Fifth Amendment: Have you heard of "enhanced interrogation" (torture)? The right does not extend to civil court. You can be required to give incriminating evidence for federal tax purposes...etc...

These are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head. There have literally been volumes dedicated to this stuff.

Click Click D'oh:Zasteva: You understand that the meaning changes when you add words like "solely". I never said solely and I agree that's patently false.

Click Click D'oh: No, you didn't, but the person who started that line of reasoning did: "Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you" ... and now you are carrying the torch for him. Unless you wish to distinguish your argument from his?

Remember that he included target practice as training for killing things, so put that under the umbrella of ultimate purpose.

If the only intent for a firearm design is target practice, then why use a lethal design? Why not less dangerous design -- a pellet gun, or a paintball gun. While those are both able to kill someone under the wrong circumstances, they are clearly not designed to kill.

Guns were initially designed and used for warfare. As they became cheaper and more available they gradually started being used for hunting. I'll pretty much guarantee you that nobody in 1890 would argue that a gun was not intended to kill things.

Second rule of firearm safety -- never point it at anyone you don't intend to kill.

Click Click D'oh:Zasteva: Cars Guns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of Cars guns are designed primarily for other purposes (School buses shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too.

Right. That's why they called the first cars "horseless carriages", because the word "carriage" means "highly effective method of killing people", not "way to carry people or goods from place to place".

Click Click D'oh:Continuing with the absurdity... Sometimes it can be a royal pain to scrape the toddlers off my Chargers push bumper. The back seat is for spectators. Any rumor that my Charger is for designed for non-lethal intents is simply false.

Yes, you are very good at writing absurd things. Now try writing some true things. Here's an example:

My brother's AK-47 and my best friend's .45 are designed to kill people. Any rumor that they are designed for non-lethal intents is simply false.

Zasteva: Safety glass, bumpers, collapsing unibody frames that absorb the impact of collisions, safety belts, airbags, ABS, dynamic traction and stability control, and, in the near future we can expect to see things like automatic collision avoidance and eventually self-driving cars that take car out of human hands altogether.

All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.

1. There is no law in existence that will prevent 100% of the problems associated with said law, but that doesn't mean we stop having laws.2. Can SOME deaths be prevented by stricter gun laws? The answer to that question is a resounding YES. In particular, accidental deaths (particularly to children) in homes where guns are kept would be reduced significantly. One-time mass shootings from otherwise non-offenders would also go down. So the question would be... How many preventable deaths is too many before we pass even the tiniest measure?3. Drug and gang-related crime is not necessarily the sort of criminal that new gun laws would even be targeting. Yes, they can in fact obtain a gun on the black market. The laws in question are aimed more at the "school shooter" type, which has typically obtained firearms through perfectly legal means.

There are a few simple things we could do in this country today, with very little legislative effort and without infringing on anyone's rights.

1. We could start actually prosecuting prohibited possessors who try to buy guns from licensed dealers and fail their background checks. As it is, they get told "no sale" and 99.9% of them get to just walk away with zero consequences.

2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.

It's telling that nobody on the anti-gun side of the debate has advocated for anything like these changes.

Zasteva:All good examples. So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person? Because most of the pro-gun crowd seem to be vociferously against them.Any of those laws would get tossed in about 15 seconds after the summary judgment was requested, and I'm saying that as someone who stores his guns in a locked gun cabinet with either a trigger lock or breech lock as convenience dictates.

arentol:It's almost as if crime, gun or otherwise, is a social, economic, and cultural issue, not a gun issue. But nah, that can't be true. We all know it is the guns fault that people commit violent acts, not the people being brought up in a culture that promotes violent crime as the only way to get ahead.

It's an issue of causal order. No, guns don't make people violent. But, they do tend to make people more effective at doing violence.